Other scientific oddities from the "Electric Fossils?" thread (not to be confused with the "Electric Fossilization" thread). Perhaps someone can reconstruct the 3 pages of "Electric Fossilization" and then the 1 page of "Electric Fossils?" at the end of this post? So it's all in the same place... No sense splitting related topics, right?

- At http://thunderbolts.info/forum/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=13&t=317&p=6537&hilit=dinosaur#p6537 I gave links to sites showing evidence of dinosaurs in the time of later humans. The bone bed in Alaska is most interesting as it is said to contain both fossilized and unfossilized dinosaur bones. The idea of electrical fossilization is intriguing, but how would some bones in a pit be fossilized and some not, even by electricity? And, if dinosaur bones exist that are unfossilized, doesn't that mean they're very young? Like 5 to 10 thousand or so years old? Apparently, the reason the unfossilized bones did not disintegrate is because they were frozen.- The bias against a young Earth and against dinosaurs living into the age of humans is amazing to me for a forum like this one. It shows how far conventional dogma has brainwashed even many of the people here, who are otherwise seemingly more open-minded than average. It's a wonder more of you don't believe in CO2 causing global warming.

Lloyd wrote:- The bias against a young Earth and against dinosaurs living into the age of humans is amazing to me for a forum like this one. It shows how far conventional dogma has brainwashed even many of the people here, who are otherwise seemingly more open-minded than average. It's a wonder more of you don't believe in CO2 causing global warming.

Speaking for myself, I believe both these scenarios are more than plausible.I'm sure there are others as well.The Gazillions of years necessary to uphold various earth & astronomical theories just aren't substantiated by a Long shot.On a side note, I have stopped eating beans as My way to contribute to lowering CO2 here, and on Jupiter.

Osmosis wrote:It seems reasonable to think that some dragons were terrestrial dinosaurs and some were plasma discharges-the flying-fire breathing ones.

In my opinion there is not much reason to cite dinosaurs as the inspiration for the celestial dragon/serpent. Even if humans had experienced living dinosaurs, they were probably in no way perceived as snakelike, serpent like, or any way reptillian. The dragon/reptillian appearance of dinosaurs is a left over from past paleontological misconceptions and misinterpretations. Dinosaurs were large warm blooded animals and in no way reptillian or dragonlike in appearance. The cosmic dragon is of course an interpretation of an appearance in the sky, it is associated with Venus and/or comets, it is likened to a serpent or snake in cultures, but also beasts of an impossible composite character, such as the oxymoronical feathered serpent. Cold blooded reptiles do not have hair or feathers which are characteristic of a warm blooded animal. Another unreal characteristic is it's ability to breathe fire or hurl destructive bolts, also there is the associations with flowing or braided hair, terrible goddess, sword, etc. For these reasons I don't put much stock in dinosaurs as inspiration for the dragon. The ancients saw an awe inspiring, doomsday comet in the sky and likened the phantasmogorical images projected on that big screen to things familiar to them, one of them being the snake/serpent, an interpretation of the writhing plasma tail of Typhon, aka Comet-Venus. IMHOP

Lloyd wrote- The bias against a young Earth and against dinosaurs living into the age of humans is amazing to me for a forum like this one. It shows how far conventional dogma has brainwashed even many of the people here, who are otherwise seemingly more open-minded than average. It's a wonder more of you don't believe in CO2 causing global warming.

I personally don't have any bias against dinosaurs living into the time of man. Layers of strata in the ground that are interpreted as indicative of millions of years of deposition could have been made in one catastrophic day. Pictographs of dinosaurs, tales describing dinosaur like animals, human (?) footprints in Mesozoic strata, unfossilized dinosaur tissue, etc are anomalies that send up the red flag.In light of the EU we should question everything.As far as the 'young' Earth goes, what is young? Following the EU lead and assuming that the Earth originated in a fissioning of the core of a brown dwarf or gas giant, how long would it take to reach its' present state? or put another way, what is the minimum possible age of the Earth? and if Venus is a new planet, how long would it take to evolve into something like Earth, taking their positions in the solar system into consideration? Lose its' massive atmosphere, cool down, etc.As I see it, we just don't know all that much about the history of our planet, we are only just learning about its' recent catastrophic past.There are many possibilities and scenarios.

The bone bed in Alaska is most interesting as it is said to contain both fossilized and unfossilized dinosaur bones. The idea of electrical fossilization is intriguing, but how would some bones in a pit be fossilized and some not, even by electricity? And, if dinosaur bones exist that are unfossilized, doesn't that mean they're very young? Like 5 to 10 thousand or so years old? Apparently, the reason the unfossilized bones did not disintegrate is because they were frozen.- The bias against a young Earth and against dinosaurs living into the age of humans is amazing to me for a forum like this one. It shows how far conventional dogma has brainwashed even many of the people here, who are otherwise seemingly more open-minded than average. It's a wonder more of you don't believe in CO2 causing global warming.

Well in Alaska there was something special that occured. The Northern Hemisphere was holding up quite an amount of Water when Saturn was affecting our tides, pulling water towards the poles.

When it left, the water flowed down over Canada and into the US. The mudslide retreated back towards the north, carrying debris and bone with it. Fossils would be things that were hit (by electricity) and fossilized and the bones are things that died and got backwashed to the sea.

When they found a 'fossilized' shark with a fossilized embryo and a fossilized umbilical cord turned up, I mocked the idea of 'slow fossilization'.

My question: Does this turn a discipline on its ear? If fossils can be created (under the right circumstances) in days, rather than millions of years, is it incumbent upon science to re-examine the fields of fossils and geology in this new light? I mean, dating of materials is founded on specific assumptions. If new data overturns those assumptions... I hate to speculate the can of worms this opens!

Another question: why is argon used in the process? Is it a requirement or could other elements / chemicals be used in the process? If not, why not? What's special about Argon in the process?

Yet another: Is the structure of the ceramic identical to that of ACTUAL fossils, or are there differences? If so, what are they?

I still wonder whether something similar to electrophoresis might also produce similar results?

The first article mgmirkin mentions above states, in its final paragraph:

one cubic centimeter has the surface area of a football field.

Maybe it's just me, but how is this possible?The rest of the article was very interesting. I second Osmosis' thought about using argon during the "fossilization" process.The question is: now that we know wood can be fossilized in a few hours' time—after being soaked, in turn, in hydrochloric acid and silica solution, then heated and cooled in an argon atmosphere—how may we fossilize wood using electricity? It's a safe bet the fossil record wasn't created in the same way.

longcircuit wrote:The first article mgmirkin mentions above states, in its final paragraph:

one cubic centimeter has the surface area of a football field.

Maybe it's just me, but how is this possible?

I think, though don't quote me on this, that what they were saying about surface area was with reference to porosity... IE, if the surface is textured with holes / bubbles or small protruding bits, then the 3D surfaces of those bubbles amount to much more surface area (if laid flat) than just an otherwise perfectly flat 2D surface would...

Kind of like a giant cubic crystal of salt versus a finely ground pile of salt powder. The powder has far more surface area than the crystal, assuming the large crystal's surface is relatively perfectly flat.

~Michael Gmirkin

"The purpose of science is to investigate the unexplained, not to explain the uninvestigated." ~Dr. Stephen Rorke"For every PhD there is an equal and oppositePhD." ~Gibson's law

Can't say I've ever believed in the convention of slow fossil formation. I did tend to go the IV way of earth subsurface heating (friction) as the agent, due to planetary axis spins. Then electric underfloor heating was invented! Now I'm not so sure. Whether its shells preserved in Med limestone (seabed mud) or coal seams (compressed forest debris) in Germany, I just see incredible amounts of heat delivered instantly over vast areas. Dinosaur fossils are often baked into mud/sand "washed down riverbeds" with their footprints similarly preserved elsewhere.

My other concern, slightly off base, is explaining the lower gravity conditions that must be necessary for these enormous lifeforms to exist. I haven't searched the entire forum for this discussion yet. Until we have (or I read) an electrically adjustable gravity theory I just go with a faster rotating earth....

cigarshaped wrote:My other concern, slightly off base, is explaining the lower gravity conditions that must be necessary for these enormous lifeforms to exist. I haven't searched the entire forum for this discussion yet. Until we have (or I read) an electrically adjustable gravity theory I just go with a faster rotating earth....

Not to go too far out on a limb, but if mass is variable under Thornhill's interpretations, then might gravity (which seems to depend on mass) also be variable in kind?